BIJAI INDER SINGH Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed in execution proceedings against a declared insolvent. It appears that the decree-holder obtained the permission of the insolvency Court under Section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to institute a suit against the insolvent and a decree was obtained against the insolvent on the basis of a promissory note executed on the 5 of September 1920, i.e., some years after the date on which he was adjudged an insolvent. The decree-holder subsequently applied to execute the decree by the attachment of certain moveable property belonging to the insolvent. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that his property was not liable to attachment so long as he remained an undischarged insolvent. Under Section 28(2) the effect of the order of adjudication is to vest the whole of the property of the insolvent in the Court or in the receiver, and under Sub-section 4 any property acquired by the insolvent after the date of the order of the adjudication also vests in the Court or the receiver. It seems clear, therefore, that this property which the decree-holder seeks to attach does not belong to the judgment-debtor and is not liable to attachment under Section 60 of the Civil P.C. because it does not belong to the judgment-debtor but vests either in the Court or in the receiver.

(2.) In the present case it appears that there is at present no receiver since the receiver, who was appointed originally, died and no one has been appointed in his place. The property, therefore, vests in the Court.

(3.) It has been argued that as the Court gave permission for the institution of this suit the permission for instituting the suit should be held to cover permission for executing any decree obtained in the suit.